[BtS] Rise of Mankind 2

I started getting alot of lag from classical, probably due to too many bug options or something or I expanded too much in stranded.

Someone mentioned getting XP 64 and 4 megs of RAM to get CivIV to run right with Zappara's mod.

I have XP 64

Phenom 9550

Nvidia GTX 260

8MB RAM

and I still get crashes. The first is usually about 1000BC, and they get more frequent after that. I have my graphics cranked, however, so I guess I'll turn them down and see if that helps. Sucks to have a great setup and not being able to run it hard, though.

Is there any chance of seeing RoM going further back in history, like El Triturador did with his cool Stone Age mod? Palaeolithic - Transhuman is twice the fun of just pre-Bronze to Transhuman

This is a great mod I applaud the designer and everyone who has contributed to it! Great work!

Question: I started up a match with the "Start as Minor" powers tab selected. Luckly I set it for Noble, as the AI seems to be pretty capable with this mod . . . anyway, I became a non-minor power at some point along about 2000 BC I think. But no one else has transitioned into "Major Power?" yet. Can't seem to find anything in the civopedia about this part of the mod.

ADDIT: I would love it if I had time to be a modder myself, but I already procrastinate way more than I should . . . maybe when I retire.

Anyway, I have lots of ideas, which are only somewhat half-baked. In the interest of provoking additional thought, and perhaps elaborations of this or other mods, here are some ideas.

Anthropoid's Five Ideas for modifications to mods:

1. Fundamental changes to how units operate:
(a) make units much harder to completely destroy (whole units, even brigades, do not evaporate so easily) primarily by giving nearly all units in the game some probability to "withdraw" from combat in the way that pesently only mounted units have. Specifically, at present horse archers have a 20% withdrawal chance, and chariots 10%. Instead, make 25% the basic level for virtually ALL units (with some exceptions like Elephant units that perhaps should have a lower % or perhaps no chance at all to withdraw). In addition give all the mounted units that already have withdrawal percentages, that percent on top of 25%.

So, warriors would get a 25% chance to withdraw, Berserkers 25%, pikemen 25%, infantry 25%, etc. Chariots would be 35% at base (prior to any flanking promotions), horse archers 45%, cavalry 55%.

Arguably, certain units that represented historic milestones in military science (e.g., Legionnaires, or Scythe Swordsmen) which were the best units of their era should get a slight bonus compared to other units of their historical era (maybe 5%?). Also, modern units (rifleman and above) should have increasing opportunities to train through experience to have more capacity to withdraw from combat; basically at some point, the flanking promotions should become an option for most types of units, probably nearly everything post rifleman.

Tanks should automatically get some fairly substantial level (40%?) and Mech Infantry should automatically start out quite high (60%?). Thinking throuh exactly how this MAJOR change would manifest in each and every unit in the game is beyond the scope of time I have at this moment, but I believe it would make for a more realistic game. I believe (or rather suspect) that because of how the combat outcomes are already coded to calculate, this fundamental change of making combat withdrawal the norm instead of the exception would effectively make combats more realistic: units would not evaporate in one single battle. Instead it might take two, or maybe three engagements to kill most of the units in an initial stack and this would also allow for fighting retreats instead of theatre level combat in the game AlWAYS being determiend by a few single Battle Royales in which entire stacks are destroyed.

(b) make units generally slower to heal, and make unit healing more reflective of the contextual factors likely to affect ability to bring recruits from the homeland (distance to roads or railroads), else to recruit or conscript locals (culture level level in a tile, population in a tile). Keep all the existing healing factors (medic promotions, hospitals, etc.) as they are at present, but add in the factors I describe here, basically reflecting recruitment and replenishment of casualties. I think it would be a good idea for the rate of healing inside home territory to be modified by some indicator of population in the tile in which the unit is healing. So for example, a unit in a size 10 city (even without any Medic promoted units, or hostpitals etc.) with 200 culture should heal units faster than a size 5 city with 100 culture. In order for the preceding rule (f) to work right, the overall rate at which units heal should be slowed down in general, and the current rates should only be achievable under conditions of substantial culture and population in a tile. I'm not aware of what the rate of healing is at present, but just to promote other guys who are more familiar with the code thinking about it, I'll assume that the base rate of healing inside home territory with no other factors (no medics, no hospitals, etc.) is 10, with 0 being a total lack of healing, and 100 being 10 times faster than "10." Here are some ideas for how this rate could be adjusted:

Reset the base rate to about 50% what it is at present (so that a unit that would have normaly required 5 turns to heal fully would instead require 10 turns), retain all the existing healing rate modifiers (medic promotions, buildings like hospitals, etc.[also, I suspect that the existing code has different rates for different types of tiles maybe?]) [see ideas for forts and castles below] and then modify the base healing rate as follows:

grassland with no road = base rate
[I'm fairly certain there is already some modifier in place for healing in neutral territory, and for healing in enemy territory whatever those are at present I'd guess they should be fine to keep them as they are]

_In All Territories [Home, Neutral, or Enemy]_
hill with no road = -7%
desert with no road=-9%
forest with no road= -5% (cumulative with hills)
tundra = -10%
"ice" = -20%
ocean = -50%
coast = -5%
jungle = -20%
in a tile with road connection to capital/trade network +12%
in a tile with Roman Road connection to capital/trade network +15%
in a tile with railroad connection to capital/trade network +30%
empty tile [no road or rail] adjacent to road connected to network +6%
empty tile [no road or rail] adjacent to Roman Road connected to network +9%
empty tile [no road or rail] adjacent to railroad connected to network +15%
empty tile [no road or rail] one tile remote from road connected to network +3%
empty tile [no road or rail] one tile remote from Roman road +6%
empty tile [no road or rail] one tile remote from Railroad +9%
empty tile [no road or rail] two tiles remote from road +1%
empty tile [no road or rail] two tiles remote from Roman Road +3%
empty tile [no road or rail] two tiles remote from railroad +5%
empty tile [no road or rail] three tiles remote from railroad +2%
[NOTE: I'm not certain if it works this way at present or not, but occupying an enemy tile with a unit should effectively make any roads, Roman Roads, or railroads in that tile function as if they are part of friendly trade network, as long as the tile remains occupied by friendly forces. This would dramatically alter theatre level combat forcing both AI and human to protect supply lines by leaving columns of units along captured enemy road networks]
+0.75% per culture point in the tile (would include tiles inside enemy borders with the checkerboard pattern) (culmulative with everything else)

_Inside home territory_
+1.5% healing rate per population point for units resting in city tiles (culmulative with everything else)
+3% for any irrigated tile (farm without any bonus resource), workshop, mill, quarry, mine, or pasture
+4% for any plantation or a farm on a bonus resource (wheat, corn, etc.)
+5% for being adjacent to any hamlet, village or town (cumulative with all above)
+10% for a hamlet
+20% for a village
+30% a town
_Inside Enemy Territory_
+1% for any irrigated tile (farm without any bonus resource), workshop, mill, quarry, mine, or pasture
+2% for any plantation or a farm on a bonus resource (wheat, corn, etc.)
+1% for being adjacent to any hamlet, village or town (cumulative with all above)
+4% for a hamlet
+8% for a village
+11% for a town


2. Make health in cities more important; instead of a min level of health being requisite only for a city to grow, excess
health should increase hammers, commerce, and happiness, and should also be equivalent to more food, making a city grow
faster.

+1 hammer per 1.5 excess health
+1 commerce per 2 excess health
+1 happy per 2.5 excess health
+1 "food" per 3 excess health


3. Make the tile improvements which produce luxuries, foods, and strategic resources more important.

At present luxuries can give bonus happiness and/or health to all connected cities, as well as commerce,
and/or hammers to the home city.

Foods can give bonus health to all, as well as bonus food, and/or commerce, and/or hammers to the home city.

Strategic resources allow various things to be built in all connected cities and give bonus food, and/or commerce, and/or
hammers to the home city.

(a) make the bonuses in commerce and hammers from tiles with Luxuries and Strategic resources impact ALL CONNECTED
cities, instead of only the home city. So for example, instead of a gem resource giving +1hammer +5commerce only for the city
whose citizens work the tile, give this benefit to ALL connected cities irrespective of if the tile is worked or not.

(b) Each additional Luxury or Strategic resource gives an additional bonus to commerce or hammers. In short, A society that controls 5 Gems would automatically get +5hammers and +25commerce in ALL CONNECTED CITIES, even if the none of the tiles are being worked.

(c) also give the existing bonues to the home city if the tile is worked, effectively giving the home cities double the
benefit. Referring to the above example: Each city with a Gem in its Fat-X could also get an ADDITIONAL +1hammer and +5commerce for EACH Gem Mine tile that is worked (i.e., the way it works in the present rules). So for example, in a society with 5 Gems, with three gems being in the Fat-X for Rome, and two in the Fat-X for Venice: Rome would get (+5hammers & +25commerce) and up to an additional +3hammers and +15commerce for each of the Gem Mines worked. Venice would get (+5hammers & +25commerce) and up to an additional +2hammers and +10commerce for each of the Gem Mines worked. Effectively, what these changes will do, is make Luxuries and Strategic Resources _MUCH_ more important sources of commerce, and production, as I argue they reasonably should be.

(d) a related idea that would involve quite a bit of work would be to have more structures that can be built in a city if it
has access to a resource and which give a benefit as long as the city HAS access to the resource, but which causes some
negative effect if the city LOSES access to the resource (e.g., a city with a Gem Cutter Guild built in it might get +5% commerce for each Gem it has access to, but suffer -2 food and -1 health if it has access to no gems, representing the out-migration if the Gem Cutter's Guild had nothing to work with.

(e) amplify the negative effects of pillaging luxury producing tiles (mines, planatations, etc.), communities (hamlets,
villages, towns), and strategic resource tiles? (e.g., +1 movement in the tile for 10 turns? reduced culture in the tile? reduce health or maybe even reduced population in the nearest cities?). What we need to keep in mind here is what exactly pillaging a tile equates with. Those mines, farms, pastures, and communities are not just little outposts, but centers of population, where thousands if not tens or even hundreds of thousands of people live and/or work. To "pillage" one of those tiles is to destroy or severely damage the infrastructure, and to displace many of those resident people. The result would be many dead people, pestilence, famine, raping and looting, refugees, etc. Thus, the negative effects should be even greater than they are presently IMHO.


4. Make protection of tiles more important: at present the AI is most concerned with protecting cities, the protection of
frontiers has historically been a far more important thing. I suspect that by making the effects of health more important to city productivity, commerce and growth and also making community tiles, luxuries, and strategic resources more important it may cause the AI to adopt more realistic "field" warfare strategies by positioning defensive units outside cities more frequently. In addition to this, adjust the following:
(a) an enemy unit exerts Zone of Control into all adjacent tiles that are not occupied by a friendly unit. Enemy ZOC blocks supply through a tile.
(b) forts provide a %35 defensive bonus
(c) forts increase movement costs for enemy units in all adjacent tiles by +1, and also negate enemy ZOC in all adjacent tiles
(d) forts increase unit healing by 10% [cumulative with all the modifiers described above]
(e) forts can be built on any tile (except water, mountain or a city itself) irrespective of what other improvements
are there [might be a good idea if the worker time/effort to build a fort is increased a little bit, maybe one or two extra turns]
(f) change castles to be a tile improvement instead of a city building
(g) shift the bonus espionage and culture benefits of castles to some other Medieval/Renaissance building(s)
(h) give castles: +45% tile defense; +20% unit healing in tile, and the same effects on enemy movement and ZOC negation
(i) if it were possible, somehow give cities defensive bonuses for remaining connected to at least one other same-tribe city and to resources: (i) +5% defensive bonus for each type of Luxury, Food or Strategic tile improvement to which a defending city retains a non-interdicted trade route; (ii) for every community in their Fat-X to which they retain a non-interdicted trade route [+1.5% per Hamlet, +3% per Village; +5% per Town]; (iii) +25% for having at least one trade route with a city in the same tribe.

In effect, if a city is not "cut off" by having enemy units positioned so as to interdict all incoming trade routes it should retain a substantial automatic defensive bonus. This may well be difficult or impossible to code, but say for example a city automatically gets a 25% defensive bonus if it has at least one non-interdicted trade route to another allied city, and gets an additional +5% for each TYPE of resource to which it retains at least one non-interdicted route. The bonuses for resources would not be cumulative with the number of resources, but simply with the number of TYPES of resources.

So at least one trade route intact with another city (+25%) and having 6 Fish would give only another +5% for a total of +30%. But having at least one intact trade route with a same-tribe city (+25%), having 6 Fish (+5%), 2 Horses (+5%), 1 Iron (+5%), 2 Wheat (+5%), 1 corn (+5%), 1 hamlet (+1.5%), 2 villages (2*3% = 6%]), and 1 town (5%) would give a total defensive bonus of 62.5%.

This would make marching straight up to a city and sieging it in one round with a mega stack very difficult. Instead it would be necessary to disperse one's units so as to interdict trade into the city, thus weakening its defenses and allowing it to be maneagably besieged.


5. Make operating inside enemy territory more costly. Whatever it is, it needs to be increased by 15 to 30% I'd say.

I'm the typical techno-ignorant person who can never seem to get things like this to work. when I download v2.62 or the mega pack, they both look like media files to be opened in windows media player (where it opens if I click on it). It doesn't seem like I can extract it like other files I've downloaded on here. Anyone have any clue what I'm doing wrong here? This mod looks to great for me to give up!

Try doing a Net search for WinRAR and downloading that. It's a file packaging programme.

Can we do something about the "We fear you are becoming too advanced" problem?
the MOD adds lots of techs and inevitablly a game's life-time number of tech trade increases. however without adjusting the limit to the number of techs AIs are willing to trade, you won't be able to make any tech trades in the later half of the game.

Having said that, may I comment my opinion that this funcion is a total bull sh*t and we should abandon it once for all. The fuction was included because people could exploit AI's poor tech trading skills in Civ3. But hey, the game is about simulating civilization and how can you get a ceiling on tech trades? If a bad game design is compensated by making simulation inaccurate, it loses the whole point of a simulation game. We should definitely do something with this if we want to keep expanding the game.

Anthropoid said:

1. Fundamental changes to how units operate:
(a) make units much harder to completely destroy (whole units, even brigades, do not evaporate so easily) primarily by giving nearly all units in the game some probability to "withdraw" from combat in the way that pesently only mounted units have. Specifically, at present horse archers have a 20% withdrawal chance, and chariots 10%. Instead, make 25% the basic level for virtually ALL units (with some exceptions like Elephant units that perhaps should have a lower % or perhaps no chance at all to withdraw). In addition give all the mounted units that already have withdrawal percentages, that percent on top of 25%.

So, warriors would get a 25% chance to withdraw, Berserkers 25%, pikemen 25%, infantry 25%, etc. Chariots would be 35% at base (prior to any flanking promotions), horse archers 45%, cavalry 55%.

Arguably, certain units that represented historic milestones in military science (e.g., Legionnaires, or Scythe Swordsmen) which were the best units of their era should get a slight bonus compared to other units of their historical era (maybe 5%?). Also, modern units (rifleman and above) should have increasing opportunities to train through experience to have more capacity to withdraw from combat; basically at some point, the flanking promotions should become an option for most types of units, probably nearly everything post rifleman.

Tanks should automatically get some fairly substantial level (40%?) and Mech Infantry should automatically start out quite high (60%?). Thinking throuh exactly how this MAJOR change would manifest in each and every unit in the game is beyond the scope of time I have at this moment, but I believe it would make for a more realistic game. I believe (or rather suspect) that because of how the combat outcomes are already coded to calculate, this fundamental change of making combat withdrawal the norm instead of the exception would effectively make combats more realistic: units would not evaporate in one single battle. Instead it might take two, or maybe three engagements to kill most of the units in an initial stack and this would also allow for fighting retreats instead of theatre level combat in the game AlWAYS being determiend by a few single Battle Royales in which entire stacks are destroyed.

2. Make health in cities more important; instead of a min level of health being requisite only for a city to grow, excess
health should increase hammers, commerce, and happiness, and should also be equivalent to more food, making a city grow
faster.

+1 hammer per 1.5 excess health
+1 commerce per 2 excess health
+1 happy per 2.5 excess health
+1 "food" per 3 excess health



(e) amplify the negative effects of pillaging luxury producing tiles (mines, planatations, etc.), communities (hamlets,
villages, towns), and strategic resource tiles? (e.g., +1 movement in the tile for 10 turns? reduced culture in the tile? reduce health or maybe even reduced population in the nearest cities?). What we need to keep in mind here is what exactly pillaging a tile equates with. Those mines, farms, pastures, and communities are not just little outposts, but centers of population, where thousands if not tens or even hundreds of thousands of people live and/or work. To "pillage" one of those tiles is to destroy or severely damage the infrastructure, and to displace many of those resident people. The result would be many dead people, pestilence, famine, raping and looting, refugees, etc. Thus, the negative effects should be even greater than they are presently IMHO.


4. Make protection of tiles more important: at present the AI is most concerned with protecting cities, the protection of
frontiers has historically been a far more important thing. I suspect that by making the effects of health more important to city productivity, commerce and growth and also making community tiles, luxuries, and strategic resources more important it may cause the AI to adopt more realistic "field" warfare strategies by positioning defensive units outside cities more frequently. In addition to this, adjust the following:
(a) an enemy unit exerts Zone of Control into all adjacent tiles that are not occupied by a friendly unit. Enemy ZOC blocks supply through a tile.
(b) forts provide a %35 defensive bonus
(c) forts increase movement costs for enemy units in all adjacent tiles by +1, and also negate enemy ZOC in all adjacent tiles
(d) forts increase unit healing by 10% [cumulative with all the modifiers described above]
(e) forts can be built on any tile (except water, mountain or a city itself) irrespective of what other improvements
are there [might be a good idea if the worker time/effort to build a fort is increased a little bit, maybe one or two extra turns]
(f) change castles to be a tile improvement instead of a city building
(g) shift the bonus espionage and culture benefits of castles to some other Medieval/Renaissance building(s)
(h) give castles: +45% tile defense; +20% unit healing in tile, and the same effects on enemy movement and ZOC negation
(i) if it were possible, somehow give cities defensive bonuses for remaining connected to at least one other same-tribe city and to resources: (i) +5% defensive bonus for each type of Luxury, Food or Strategic tile improvement to which a defending city retains a non-interdicted trade route; (ii) for every community in their Fat-X to which they retain a non-interdicted trade route [+1.5% per Hamlet, +3% per Village; +5% per Town]; (iii) +25% for having at least one trade route with a city in the same tribe.

In effect, if a city is not "cut off" by having enemy units positioned so as to interdict all incoming trade routes it should retain a substantial automatic defensive bonus. This may well be difficult or impossible to code, but say for example a city automatically gets a 25% defensive bonus if it has at least one non-interdicted trade route to another allied city, and gets an additional +5% for each TYPE of resource to which it retains at least one non-interdicted route. The bonuses for resources would not be cumulative with the number of resources, but simply with the number of TYPES of resources.

So at least one trade route intact with another city (+25%) and having 6 Fish would give only another +5% for a total of +30%. But having at least one intact trade route with a same-tribe city (+25%), having 6 Fish (+5%), 2 Horses (+5%), 1 Iron (+5%), 2 Wheat (+5%), 1 corn (+5%), 1 hamlet (+1.5%), 2 villages (2*3% = 6%]), and 1 town (5%) would give a total defensive bonus of 62.5%.

This would make marching straight up to a city and sieging it in one round with a mega stack very difficult. Instead it would be necessary to disperse one's units so as to interdict trade into the city, thus weakening its defenses and allowing it to be maneagably besieged.


5. Make operating inside enemy territory more costly. Whatever it is, it needs to be increased by 15 to 30% I'd say.

Click to expand...

Some GREAT ideas, especially the negative effects of pillaging resources etc & units being able to retreat etc, I've always thought that should be changed. I'm also for the Forts & other tiles needing to be effectively defended by AI as just stacking 10 units or w/e in one city not only makes it a little too difficult to take the city, it also makes everything surrounding the city completely vulnerable which history indicates civs did not do unless completely overwhelmed. The health being more important was something I hadnt thought of tho & a great idea too, as healthy cities are not only happier cities but more productive & efficient cities.

Not about the tiles bonuses being changed to include all citites so much as it would unbalance almost everything in the game from unit & building production to economy & would take probably years to balance it all properly.

All in all some of the better ideas Ive seen inawhile, great work

Thanks Subaru. Balancing it all would definitely be a lot of work.

You're right about the tile bonuses being maybe a bit much. To implement it would involve going through all the build costs and tech costs and reworking them, which is perhaps not worth it given the benefit of doing it. However, the underlying reason is that, there is a potential that is being lost in the game, the potential for something approximating logistics. At present, there are only two reasons to own 3 silks as compared to 1: (I) to deny ownership to rivals; (II) to sell to trade partners for $. While these are certainly fine dynamics, that simulate real world national trade rather nicely, they leave out issues of quantity and scaling. Having 10,000 tons of iron is a far different story from having 100,000 tons, or a million. The game has the capacity to simulate the realworld effects of scaling of resources in economic systems, but this opportunity is being squandered because the entire system is balanced arond the simplest possible model. . . . Just ideas!

ADDIT: remembered there is a third value of an additional resource too: the added production in a city

The (1)(b) "make units generally slower to heal, and make unit healing more reflective of the contextual factors likely to affect ability to bring recruits from the homeland (distance to roads or railroads), else to recruit or conscript locals (culture level level in a tile, population in a tile)" coding it would be a big job, and as I understand it would involve the SDK? (whatever that is).

You quoted the part about units not dying, but I wanted to point out that this 1b clause is a requisite partner to 1(a) working right (also might need to slightly up maintenance costs for units, but that would be a tweaking and balancing issue).

At present, in virtually all mods of civ, we build "units." We have no idea what these comprise. How many guys? How many camp followers? What officer and nco corp structures? What sort of supply "tail?" Is it divided into platoons or what? While the model certainly works in its present abstract form, there are some intrinsic contradictions and incongruities that a careful consideration reveals--even though it does work overall.

A pre-bronze age "Warrior" "unit" (couple thousand tough guys with stone hand axes and clubs and wearing furs and painted all frightly-like??) can 'control' the same amount of space on the map (one 'tile') as a late 20th century Mech Infantry? There are others, but in the interest of brevity I'll leave it with that one. Suffice to say: there are serious issues with scaling relative to the map, improvements, communities, units and time in the game.

Some of these intrinsic and seemingly (at this stage of technology) unavoidable foibles of the Civ games have to do with the fact that maps are just too small. But, given the fancy graphics, for any normal computer it is not possible to run maps with say, 10,000 tiles (I'm just pulling that number out of my hat . . . I have done the math a couple times before though [though I may be mis-remembeing slightly] if you were to represent Earth (and only the middle lattitude parts) with a map at a reasonable scale (about 25 mile tiles because the closest large cities today are all about that far apart [Baltimore, DC e.g.]). At present we have tiles that are more like 250 or even 500 miles across, and yet, a stone age village fills in that entire area of one tile just like the modern megalopolis later on? Granted, there are more surrounding tiles in the Fat-X being worked later, but that in itself means that the Fat X is not so much a city area but more like a Province area . . . anyway, I'm tangentializing a bit here . . . the key issue is that there are problems with scaling in the game.

"Units" that are large enough (numerous enough) to 'control' 250 square mile areas would be more like Armys if not Army Groups! However, if this were true it would mean that there are other problems with the sheer numbers of guys in standing armies. It has been fairly unusual in world history to have Armies of several hundred thousand people amassed for any appreciable amount of time, yet if we make the inference that the map scale leads us to make about the size of the map, and the requisite numbers of people per unit, then we come up with a simulation game in which there are literally millions if not tens of millions of people at arms for most of human history . . .

And then we also have the unit 'evaporation' issue after defeat in 'combat.' Entire Army's let alone Army Groups that fight in one campaign (yes I realize turns are often measured in years so that battle might have actually been dozens of battles over months or even years) and evaporate *poof!* _completely_? Very uncommon in history. Even after terrible defeats in a campaign, often times an army would still have sufficient cohesion to retreat and limp home, even if it never did subsequently become an effective fighting force again.

So this issue of making units die much, much less is really central to making the game more realistic, but then if you do that, they need to heal much more slowly too, and indeed, the rate at which one is able to restore a unit to its original strength with replacements, new equipment, training, etc., should (and could be) dependent on the factors I outline: mustering new companies and platoons, conscripting, training replacements, etc.

One more idea I'll throw out there, and then I've pretty much shot my full clip . . . This is one is much more 'pie-in-sky' but who knows, maybe some enterprising modder would figure out a way to do it.

Tactial 'blow up' maps. By blow-up I mean 'magnified.

Imagine if, during war it was possible to select any tile in which you had a unit (or during battle the tile into which you were moving to attack or in which you were defending), and 'blow it up' (magnifiy it) into a 3 x 3 box of tiles. This would open up in an overlaying window. The terrain could be exactly the same terrain set as the existing set in the game. But until you selected the tile in 'tactical' mode the map for any given large tile on the main map would not get generated. Once it was generated it would get saved as a new image (sort of like the city windows must get saved? after the city is built?). The tactical maps would be generated according to a random script, with each main map terrain type having its own script.

The 3x3 tactical map of a main map grassland tile would (for example) have between 66.67% (6 out of the 9 tiles) and 77.77% grassland tiles, with the other 44.43% to 22.22% being allocated randomly between hills, plain or whatever. If possible the adjacent main map tiles would have an influence on the probabilty for the edge tiles to match them. Roads, improvements etc. would be on the tactical map.

The player could have the option to go into tactical mode either during war, in which case he could the use his units in the tactical maps to defensively prepare individual tactical tiles 'inside' specific main map tiles, or during battles. Tactical mode would slow down turns by a factor of ten or twenty. I can elaborate if what I'm suggesting seems confusing, but in brief what I have in mind here is more-or-less what is done in the Western Civilization Software games: Forge of Freedom (Am Civ War game sold by Matrix Games), Crown of Glory and Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition (also sold by Matrix).

Here's another thought - could the Malleus Maleficarum wonder from Orion's Inquisition mod be incorporated (with his cooperation of course), with the added perk that you can build Inquisitors when not Intolerant?

Don't make it so complicated that people will give up playing it.

yuizaki said:

Can we do something about the "We fear you are becoming too advanced" problem?
the MOD adds lots of techs and inevitablly a game's life-time number of tech trade increases. however without adjusting the limit to the number of techs AIs are willing to trade, you won't be able to make any tech trades in the later half of the game.

Having said that, may I comment my opinion that this funcion is a total bull sh*t and we should abandon it once for all. The fuction was included because people could exploit AI's poor tech trading skills in Civ3. But hey, the game is about simulating civilization and how can you get a ceiling on tech trades? If a bad game design is compensated by making simulation inaccurate, it loses the whole point of a simulation game. We should definitely do something with this if we want to keep expanding the game.

Click to expand...

Simplify the whole process and turn tech trading off entirely! Then you have have a WHOLE new challenge and tech trading skills are no longer of any importance... Or at least turn off tech brokering, so that you can only trade a tech that you yourself have researched (same with the AI).

Arakhor said:

Here's another thought - could the Malleus Maleficarum wonder from Orion's Inquisition mod be incorporated (with his cooperation of course), with the added perk that you can build Inquisitors when not Intolerant?

Click to expand...

Not too hard to do if you know a bit of python/xml - tsentom1 also has a version. I wont be doing it because I want all religions in my cities

Unfortunately, I don't know the first thing about XML or Python, otherwise I'd already be tweaking things to my liking!

I know only a few things, I can cheat my game up to where every tile give me 5 food so that both me and the AI, even when I cheat on the game, grows faster and engage more often.

Hey, what speed are we supposed to play this mod on? I've played a couple games on epic speed, but once I get to the renaissance period my small empire is able to research the techs in one or two turns. This really destroys the game for me because I don't have an opportunity to build or use any units before they become obsolete. The AI also doesn't seem to be able to keep up once I hit this huge tech boon. They all fall behind even if I sell them my techs for cheap.

It is recommended that you play RoM on Marathon speed (or Epic, if you're feeling swift). Of course though, if you're finding the game too easy, next time around you should play on a higher difficulty setting

Carwyn said:

Simplify the whole process and turn tech trading off entirely! Then you have have a WHOLE new challenge and tech trading skills are no longer of any importance... Or at least turn off tech brokering, so that you can only trade a tech that you yourself have researched (same with the AI).

Click to expand...

Sure tech trade off is fun, no tech brokering is fun. But I am pointing to the problem that arises during standard playing. I want to play Civilization as close to the real world history as possibe.

Just wanted to say to the modders and contributors responsible for this mod: BRAVO! *standsup and applauds*

This is really a fine, FINE mod!!

Prior to trying out this mod, my favorite was the History in the Making (HiTM) mod by Grave. If you guys who are responsible for RoM have not tried that one, you really should check it out. There are a lot of similarities and overlaps. At the risk of 'disloyalty (? ) to Grave, I have to say, at this point, I think RoM is just a tad bit better in terms of being the best "true" simulation of human cultural evolution. There are a few elements in HiTM that I think RoM might benefit from having too, but overall I think RoM has a better lineup of buildings, wonders, and a more "true to life" feeling tech tree, and dynamics between techs, units, wonders, etc.

One thing that I REALLY like in RoM is the Civics!! YESS!! _Finally_ a mod with an honestly realistic feeling set of Civics! HiTM is also good here, though slightly different. Has been a long time since I played HiTM, but you guys might have a glance at HiTM to see if you get any ideas sparked.

As I think of things I may post here to suggest HiTM elements that RoM team might consider, and I hope that that is not unwelcome. I'll try overall to be brief about it . . .

The one thing at present that I think would be worth considering would be the way the Fort tile improvement is handled in HiTM (or waitaminute, maybe this is the way Forts are handled in Fall from Heaven2?? Can't recall for certain now). First, you can build forts over top of most other tile improvements and terrain. Second, Forts gradually improve over time into more stout defensive features with more substantial and far-reaching impacts on defensive bonuses in the surrounding areas.

Cheers!